Scott Adams writes the Dilbert blog, where early in the presidential campaign he predicted a Trump victory, owing to what Adams says is Trump's mastery of persuasion.

What follows are excerpts from the NY Sun article:

In an April 12, 2017, blog post headlined “The North Korea Reframe,” Mr. Adams wrote about how Mr. Trump had reframed North Korea as a challenge to China.
...
“President Trump has said clearly and repeatedly that if China doesn’t fix the problem in its own backyard, the USA will step in to do what China couldn’t get done,” Mr. Adams wrote. “See the power in that framing? China doesn’t want a weak ‘brand.’...His reframing on North Korea is pitch-perfect. We’ve never seen anything like this.”
...
He went on, “while it might look to many observers as two crazy leaders heading for a nuclear showdown, to me it looks like two colorful characters who probably have a weird kind of respect for each other.”
...
If anyone’s “foolhardy” here, it’s not Mr. Trump, but the Times editorial writers, who apparently hate Mr. Trump so much that they couldn’t see the truth of what Scott Adams had been writing for nearly a year. Part of the point of journalism is to explain to readers what’s really happening rather than stoking false, anxiety-provoking (if click-generating) fears or “foreboding.” By that standard, on the evidence so far, Mr. Adams has done a far better job on the North Korea story than the Times has.

Whatever power the Pulitzer committees have, individual readers have a power, too. That is to treat “elite” commentary with the skepticism it deserves, and to keep an eye out for outside-the-box thinkers such as Mr. Adams. If the fears about war with North Korea were unwarranted, maybe the fears about a Trump-tariff-provoked trade war are also phony, and there, too, presidential rhetoric and actions are being used in a fashion more calculated than reckless. At least it’s worth keeping an open mind about the possibility.